Fordham religious professor Patrick Hornbeck, in a post titled "Why good Catholics are challenging church line on homosexuality," argues that good Catholics are increasingly rejecting "official Church teaching" concerning homosexuality. He claims that "A series of recent conferences at American colleges reveals the breadth of Catholic approaches to issues of sexual diversity."

Because American college professors know so much more about Catholic teachings than clergy who have dedicated their lives to serving God, or even the Pope.

Hornbeck cites a veritable litany of "good Catholics" who reject Church teaching on homosexuality. The founders of homosexual activist groups such as Fortunate Families are included by Hornbeck as examples of “good Catholics.”

Hornbeck even includes hatemonger Dan Savage in his piece, citing "his Catholic upbringing and identity" and sympathetically portraying "the year he spent in a high school seminary," "his Catholic deacon father," and "the baptism he and his husband sought for their son."

The tender and Catholic-loving Savage is in reality a foul-mouthed bigot, declaring that he wanted to f*** the s*** out of Catholic presidential candidate Rick Santorum and telling a reader to “f*** your feelings” concerning gay marriage. (But such exploits were never mentioned by Hornbeck.)

It seems that according to Hornbeck, a “good Catholic” is one who aligns with liberal social ideals, and not someone who actually believes in the teachings of the Catholic Church. In other words, a "good Catholic" is one who rejects actual Catholic teachings in favor of a more progressive worldview. (This has long been the media understanding of Catholicism.)

Hornbeck closed his rant with a call for "conversations" regarding homosexuality: "All of us, Catholic or not, LGBT or not, owe it to ourselves and our fellow citizens to keep these new conversations going. Let’s not to [sic] settle for only part of the story."

The liberal definition of “conversation,” as practiced by Savage and his cohorts, ruthlessly excludes dissent. In liberal speak, conversations about homosexuality can be translated as acceptance of homosexuality.

Anti-religious fare is nothing new for CNN’s Belief Blog. Another piece in the Belief Blog, titled "Why young Christians aren’t waiting anymore," prominently featured Christians who rejected abstinence.CNN’s Belief Blog seems to be more concerned with undermining Christian belief than examining it.

END

A note from Tim:

“There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death” (Proverbs 14:12).

The sexualization of the Body of Christ has been going on for a long time - and it is as prevalent inside the clergy and consecrated as in the laity. But Christianity is not a democracy, and the Laws of God are not open to debate any more than the are the laws of gravity, or nuclear decay, or quantum physics. That we don't understand the moral law does not change it a wit. Oh, and because the Church has become too polite to tell people that they are excommunicated (and will wind up in Hell if they do not repent) does not make the excommunication any less real.

The hypocrisy displayed here is astonishing; doubtless Hornbeck and the others at Belief Blog attacked the Church for the pedophilia scandal, yet their attack stemmed less from righteous anger at sexual sin but at the fact that the Church condemns such behavior. I wonder; would we have heard much about it if Catholic teaching said homosexuality was like any other behavior? Many of those exploited by the priests were teenagers who were just a year or two away from being able to engage in concensual sex. Bear in mind, I'm not excusing this at all, but I find it galling that those who are quite quick to excuse any sexual behavior, indeed, to celebrate it in the face of ecclesiastical authority should parade about in their faux indignation when it suits them.

The Church teaches that God has a set of rules for how humans are supposed to operate, an operation manual for the human condition. These are not simply arbitrary, but are reflections on what we call Natural Law. One does not committ adultery, or great suffering will result. One does not steal, or great suffering will result. etc., ect. Just as any appliance comes with a manual with safety warnings, so does the human condition. Lawnmowers have automatic shut-offs built on them, for instance, because some fool was dangling his off his roof to trim his shrubs and he fell, with the mower against his chest cutting him to ribbons. So the engineers had to build in a safety system. Well, human beings are like that, and while it is possible to dangle from your roof cutting your shrubs with your mower you may still get hurt. That is the meaning of THOU SHALT NOT. The Almighty has no dog in this hunt, but wants us to avoid doing ourselves harm. Sex is a powerful aspect of the human condition, and it's misuse recoils in terrible and often unforseeable ways. That is why there are TWO of the 10 Commandments that deal with sexuality, and quite a few lesser statutes that govern its use. The ban on homosexuality is one such governing ban.

And it ultimately is a good ban. Civilizations that accept homosexuality have a bad tendency to collapse. Look at Classical Greece. And there is enormous personal suffering that goes along with it, sufferings of conscience, as well as all manner of physical ailments and disease. We simply were not intended to use our bodies and emotions that way.

Yes, it does feel normal to many homosexuals to be gay. I get that - and do not condemn them for it. None of us should, because we all have our own crosses to bear. For example, there is a sin called gluttony, and so many of us have weight problems (myself included); I'm going to be the last to throw a stone here. But we cannot hide from the unpleasant truth that it IS a sin. Yes, it may feel natural to the homosexual, but the quote at the top of my analysis stands. Christianity makes it quite plain that the natural world is fallen and that following the way of nature leads one to ultimate death. If we really believe, if we truly hope to overcome the pain and sorrow of this world, we have to face the fact that a life lived in a state of nature will not work. As the Apostle Paul observed:

Romans 6:19 I put this in human terms because you are weak in your natural selves. Just as you used to offer the parts of your body in slavery to impurity and to ever-increasing wickedness, so now offer them in slavery to righteousness leading to holiness.

Romans 7:21 So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me.

Romans 7:23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

In short, if we listen to our bodies we will do things that hurt us.

Yet Progessives in the Church seek to dismantle the very protections that God has given us. They do this ultimately not out of love but in their rebellion. They are the very essence of Lucifer.

As a child my parents would often command me not to do certain things, and I would disobey. "Don't touch that pot!" or "don't stick your finger in that hinge" and I wouldn't listen to them because I believed there must be something magical and special about it - and I learned the hard way, often with a trip to the hospital. The Church bans homosexuality because it is painful to us as individuals and as a nation. It is not some desire to be a killjoy.

Yes, it is hard. It is why Jesus said we must carry our cross; some things we must endure in life are bitterly hard. But the alternative is even worse, and we simply do not get to decide what crosses we will have to bear. God alone decides that, and they are ultimately for our benefit, although we may not understand that at this moment. Most people had a high school sweetheart that passionately wanted to marry , yet now are grateful they didn't do anything so stupid. Most of us have gone through that. Is it pleasant? It's horrible, but in the end it taught us some valuable lessons. Had we given in (as people like Hornbeck would have us do) we would have suffered for the rest of our miserable lives. In this instance we are talking about relieving some immediate suffering for eternal damnation - far greater suffering for ever and ever. Is it worth that?

There is no debate here. This case has long been settled. The man who loves his brother doesn't let him play Russian Roulette.